does karate include grappling

[stanly stud]

And, yes. I do know better.

no you think you do

 

[Chris Parker]

How would you know? You have been here for weeks, at best.... have no clue who you're talking to... and have refused to actually read anything.

That said, your behaviour is essentially trolling, so I've sent this further, and don't need to respond. If you deign to read the actual posts, and have an actual argument, that'd be great... if not, then your input is basically valueless, and there's no need to go over the same ground over and over again.

 

[stanly stud]

but you refuse to even read the responses... and you think I'm acting childishly?

what is there to understand i disagree with you as do a couple of others on the thread.
Childish is making threats as an MT Mentor saying you are speaking to admin.
LMAO... as far as i am concerned..

1: it does not matter if you´re am MT MENTOR it does not mean you are automatically correct

2: it does not give you the right to make threats to abuse any super powers you have...LMAO

 

[stanly stud]

That said, your behaviour is essentially trolling,

so if i disagree it´s trolling?
How funny. How old are you?
Really are upset. do not sound very mature for a "Mod" sorry MT Mentor. !

Can twist it to suit yourself mate but you are melting like a school kid.

 

[dvcochran]

Since when does "grappling" mean only on the ground?

Let's be clear here... it doesn't. In the early UFC, the commentators had to explain what was going on to explain to people (in the viewing audience) who were unaware of such methodologies, being more familiar with boxing than anything else, and, as the majority of grappling methods were done on the ground (note: not exclusively... there were a few throws, clinches, and takedowns in order to get to the ground in the first place.... another aspect of grappling, bluntly), that image (two people on the ground) became associated with the description "grappling". But, really, it was only because that was the time the term was used (and heard) by the commentators... not because of any strict definition.

Of course, then the Gracies and other BJJ groups, being grappling systems that focus on ground work, also began to rise to prominence at that point, largely off the back of the UFC (after all, that's what it was for), and, as they (rightfully) described themselves as a grappling system, it further cleaved the association between "grappling" and "ground fighting"... then, many systems sought to combat the idea of BJJ's rising image by adding ground work, and used the, by now, popular term "grappling" to describe it... these systems being striking dominant, with minimalist standing grappling in the first place.

But the point is simple: "grappling", as a term, refers to "grabbing, seizing, holding"... it has no inference of standing, sitting, lying down, or anything else. So, if the question is whether or not karate includes methods of seizing, grabbing, holding? Yes. Yes, it does. Next?



Well... no. Kosen Judo is a subset of Kodokan rules that was formulated in the 1910's. What you're referring to is the Fusen Ryu, where a few members of the school employed ground fighting methods to a good degree of success, including the then head of the school (or, at least, a branch of it), Tanabe Mataemon. Contrary to popular belief, though, the Fusen Ryu didn't focus on ground work... in fact, it officially has basically none... but, like Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu and a range of Edo-period jujutsu systems, there was a fair amount of randori employed in many dojo, including the Handa Dojo of Tanabe. This dojo had members from a number of schools, although was mostly made up of Fusen Ryu people, so most ended up employing their own approach to tactics, even outside of the specific school they studied... and Tanabe, being of a smaller stature than others, found that he didn't find success engaging people standing... so developed his approach to focus on ground work on a personal level. He got so good, he ended up being nicknamed "Newaza Tanabe" (ground fighting Tanabe). Of course, the whole "flopped guard" is not the way it happened either... instead, more commonly various sutemi-waza were employed... Tanabe himself being noted for his use of tomoe-nage.

It's also important to note that the Kodokan wasn't "wiping up other JJ schools in challenges"... the idea of the Kodokan, really, was to be a meeting ground on a relatively level playing field for various practitioners of a range of jujutsu systems to test themselves... it was only later that that Kodokan, and Judo, really started to become its own thing. We can also point out that the Kodokan already had a decent array of newaza techniques, largely taken from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, so to say that it was only after the meeting with Tanabe that Kano studied ground work is inaccurate... in fact, he didn't (personally) do much more study of ground work itself... as mentioned, the Kodokan was initially designed as more of a "melting pot" of jujutsu schools, with Kano inviting teachers from a range of schools to teach there, including senior membership of the Sosuishi Ryu (who maintain a strong relationship with the Kodokan to today), Takenouchi Ryu, and more... as well as Tanabe himself, as a guest instructor. It's not a matter of Kano studying ground work, but instead that he brought in a teacher who focused on it.

Additionally, going on the original idea of the Kodokan, Kano envisioned it as the central place for all Japanese martial arts... focusing on classical ones, naturally, as that was the generation he was from... to the point that he intended all senior members to also be well versed in classical weapon arts, with the idea of Kendo, Iaido, Jodo, Kenjutsu, Bojutsu, Kyudo, Naginata, and more all being encompassed in the walls of the Kodokan itself. The was began in the late 1920's, when a few senior teachers of small sword school from the countryside of Chiba were invited to teach for a few years to a select number of senior members... these teachers were from the Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, and the students included Mochizuki Minoru and Sugino Yoshio. He also intended to have all Yondan and above study Shinto Muso Ryu Jo, but that never took off.

I have read through this thread. With certainty, your above post is what derailed from the OP's question.

In an effort to get it back on track:

grap·ple
/ˈɡrapəl/
verb

1. 1.
   engage in a close fight or struggle without weapons; wrestle.

Clearly, folks who have been in wrestling, BJJ and probably MMA have a more intimate viewpoint.

But to answer the OP's query, Yes there is grappling in Karate. I think where it really differentiates is there is little to no on the ground locks or joint manipulation. By in large if/when up striking or 'grappling' goes to the ground it will end with a strike for the Karate practitioner.

By definition, there is grappling in Karate.

 

[Hanzou]

And what, precisely, are "throws and takedowns" if not grappling?

They're throws and takedowns, like I said. There is standing grappling, like what you see in wrestling and Judo, but that isn't what Karate does. Karate's throws are more counter-based, where someone throws a punch, the Karateka somehow grabs the arm and then throws the opponent, or the opponent does an attack, and the karateka counters by sweeping them. That isn't grappling. Standing grappling is snap downs, arm drags, Russian ties, clinching, grip fighting, standing chokes, etc.

Oh, and you might be surprised as to just how familiar much of it is to judo, various jujutsu systems, and so on....

Typically it's just bits and pieces of Judo, and you can end up with rather substandard results because you can't put in the time to learn the throws effectively. Typically if you want to actually learn grappling, (or in the case of Karate, how to throw someone wearing a jacket) you go to an actual grappling system like Judo.

 

[stanly stud]

Typically it's just bits and pieces of Judo, and you can end up with rather substandard results because you can't put in the time to learn the throws effectively. Typically if you want to actually learn grappling, (or in the case of Karate, how to throw someone wearing a jacket) you go to an actual grappling system like Judo.

I agree if you look at a lot of famous Karate people they have also a Dan grade in Judo. why did chuck norris get a Dan grade in BJJ ... clearly two different arts.
It´s the same assumption by some on here that you can be Fitter with 4-10 mins training rather than a guy who trains 3 to 4 times a week in a gym. You need both not just one is better.

 

[stanly stud]

not blowing up BJJ by any means but it´s clearly shown here. was Chuck letting him get the better? you judge.

 

[stanly stud]

No one Messes with Chuck

 

[hoshin1600]

@Chris Parker
How's your forehead after pounding that wall with it?
Anyway my question to you would be about Japanese terminology. What would be the proper common terminology for stand up grappling? Chinese arts use Chin-na but Im drawing a blank for Japanese. Then as contrast what would you call striking? Aiki uses atemi but I don't think that is quite accurate.

 

[isshinryuronin]

@Chris Parker
How's your forehead after pounding that wall with it?
Anyway my question to you would be about Japanese terminology. What would be the proper common terminology for stand up grappling? Chinese arts use Chin-na but Im drawing a blank for Japanese. Then as contrast what would you call striking? Aiki uses atemi but I don't think that is quite accurate.

Hiki-te is "grabbing hand" and tuite is similar, but refers to more manipulation like twisting. Tuite is Okinawan, I think the Japanese use torite. They are done in conjunction with striking/kicking (uchi/keri.) This is the essence of traditional Okinawan fighting.

edit: Just saw that you were addressing Chris Parker. Didn't mean to interrupt your dialogue. Not sure of his background. Perhaps he has more to add.

 

[Hanzou]

You’re really stretching the definition of grappling by applying it to what Karate does. Especially in the modern context of MA where grappling is largely considered wrestling and submission grappling.

This is especially dubious nowadays because you have people attempting to keep karate commercially viable by adding grappling from Judo or Bjj and attempt to claim that its “traditional” karate.

 

[Chris Parker]

I have read through this thread. With certainty, your above post is what derailed from the OP's question.

In an effort to get it back on track:

grap·ple
/ˈɡrapəl/
verb

1. 1.
   engage in a close fight or struggle without weapons; wrestle.

Clearly, folks who have been in wrestling, BJJ and probably MMA have a more intimate viewpoint.

But to answer the OP's query, Yes there is grappling in Karate. I think where it really differentiates is there is little to no on the ground locks or joint manipulation. By in large if/when up striking or 'grappling' goes to the ground it will end with a strike for the Karate practitioner.

By definition, there is grappling in Karate.

The only point I'd make here is the comment that "folks who have been in wrestling, BJJ and probably MMA have a more intimate viewpoint".

No, they don't. They have a more restricted view, if anything. Their viewpoint is so limited that they end up only recognising a small portion of the reality, which is the opposite of an "intimate" view, at it's heart.

As an example, let's look at exhibit a....

They're throws and takedowns, like I said. There is standing grappling, like what you see in wrestling and Judo, but that isn't what Karate does. Karate's throws are more counter-based, where someone throws a punch, the Karateka somehow grabs the arm and then throws the opponent, or the opponent does an attack, and the karateka counters by sweeping them. That isn't grappling. Standing grappling is snap downs, arm drags, Russian ties, clinching, grip fighting, standing chokes, etc.

Are you kidding?!?!

Dude. That's all grappling. Grappling is the act of seizing, holding, pinning, locking, throwing, choking, or pressuring, as opposed to striking, which is the act of impacting... if there's a grab, or pressure, it's grappling. Just because you decide to limit your personal recognition of reality doesn't change it...

Seriously, this is like saying that China doesn't have any arts teaching sword combat, because there's no Western Broadswords there, and it's the only sword you've ever seen...

Typically it's just bits and pieces of Judo, and you can end up with rather substandard results because you can't put in the time to learn the throws effectively. Typically if you want to actually learn grappling, (or in the case of Karate, how to throw someone wearing a jacket) you go to an actual grappling system like Judo.

You know, I'm starting to believe you when you say your Shotokan time was poorly spent... karate's grappling is NOT related to Judo, and existed well before Judo did... Funakoshi's book on Shotokan includes the 9 fundamental throws of the system, which were not taken from Judo (one glance at them tells you that), and Okinawan forms have a much broader set of grappling and grappling applications than the Japanese ones do (other than Wado Ryu... but that's mainly as Wado Ryu is a synthesis of both Shotokan and Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu, to the point where the name of the school is often given as "Wado Ryu Kempo Jujutsu").

Does karate specialise in these methods? Not in the Japanese forms, in the main. But they're there. And that's the point. And, of course, if you want to specialise, I'd agree to go do judo... but that's not what is being asked. And dude... "throwing someone wearing a jacket" is often describe (in English) as "jacketed wrestling".... you know... grappling.

@Chris Parker
How's your forehead after pounding that wall with it?
Anyway my question to you would be about Japanese terminology. What would be the proper common terminology for stand up grappling? Chinese arts use Chin-na but Im drawing a blank for Japanese. Then as contrast what would you call striking? Aiki uses atemi but I don't think that is quite accurate.

Hey Hoshin.

Chin-na is a particular sub-set of Chinese grappling, referring to locks and holds in particular, as well as grip escapes and so on... the throwing etc is more in Shuai Jiao, itself a form of traditional jacketed wrestling. As for atemi, that literally means "percussing/striking to the body", and is a term for striking, not grappling, as you said, and is pretty commonly used... there can be a few variants, such as uchite (striking hands), uchi waza (striking techniques), daken (striking weapon/fist), and so on. It's all dependent on the system itself. I'll cover the actual answer to your initial question in a moment.

Hiki-te is "grabbing hand" and tuite is similar, but refers to more manipulation like twisting. Tuite is Okinawan, I think the Japanese use torite. They are done in conjunction with striking/kicking (uchi/keri.) This is the essence of traditional Okinawan fighting.

edit: Just saw that you were addressing Chris Parker. Didn't mean to interrupt your dialogue. Not sure of his background. Perhaps he has more to add.

No issue on your answering, ronin... a point, though. "Hikite" is literally "pulling hand", not "grabbing hand"... that would be "torite" that you mention afterwards (which is basically the same as the Okinawan term "tuite", as you say).

Tori (取り) basically means "to capture/seize/hold", with "te" (手) meaning "hand", giving us the idea of a "grabbing/seizing hand" (very much like the Chinese term chin-na), and is a common enough term to be almost standard... but is applied differently in different systems. In some cases, it's used as a term, or part of a term, to describe an entire jujutsu syllabus for a school (Araki Ryu Torite Kogusoku, Takenouchi Ryu Torite Hi no Shita, Yagyu Shingan Ryu Torite-gi, and so on). Other schools will use it to categorise aspects such as joint lock methods, to separate them from the throws, strikes, chokes etc (nage, uchi-waza/atemi, shime-waza).

Of course, the catch is that this is a way of categorising a particular move-set, rather than an engagement context and range, which is what you seemed to be actually asking about. In that case, there are again a number of terms used to describe an over-all stand up-grappling approach, but the thing to remember is that it's not anywhere near as separated as we in the West might think of things. In the West, we have a fairly firm distinction between "boxing" (stand up striking, hands only), "kickboxing" (stand up, striking with fists and kicks), "wrestling" (grappling, starting standing, but with an emphasis on ground control/pinning), and so on. This then lends itself to the situation we have here, where some (looking at Hanzou's next comments here) only want "grappling" to be a small segment of what the term actually encompasses... as it matches the Western preference for strict demarkation lines and categorisation.

All that said, there isn't much of a distinction made in Japanese arts between standing, seated, grappling, striking, or anything else, other than potentially within a particular school's syllabus... so one way to answer would be to say that the term used is "jujutsu"... of course, even that's not a strict definition, or the only term used, as we could also equally apply yawara, or taijutsu, or koshi no mawari, or goho, or hade, or wa, wajutsu, koshi, koppo, and more... that's before we even get up to individual segments of a schools' syllabus (Takenouchi Ryu has two separate sections that could be classed as a "jujutsu" section, the aforementioned Torite Hi no Shita, also referred to sometimes as Hade, and the Kogusoku Koshi no Mawari... it's known as the oldest jujutsu school, and they don't even use the term jujutsu!... Yagyu Shingan Ryu has four different jujutsu-like sections, including Kattchu Yawara [armoured grappling], Torite [arresting techniques], Taijutsu [unarmoured], and Gyoi Dori [a set of techniques used for the protection of a lord... quite an interesting set of waza!]).

If you want to imply a close-quarters grappling range, however, there are a few terms that come up... torite would be one, but it'd be a bit unusual to have it applied in this sense. More commonly, you'd come across "kumi-uchi" (close-inside), or sometimes "yotsude" (literally: "four hands", implying there are four points of contact with both the opponents hands and your own), and perhaps a few more.

You’re really stretching the definition of grappling by applying it to what Karate does.

No, you're limiting it to your small area of experience. All we're doing is saying that grappling is a broad term that covers a lot more than just the ground fighting that a few arts specialise in... which, when all is said and done, is a minor art in the grand scheme of things.

Especially in the modern context of MA where grappling is largely considered wrestling and submission grappling.

So what? As I've said, that is only a small portion of what grappling entails... so, because there's a popular sport that limits it's understanding of a word, we all have to ignore the wider meaning?

This is especially dubious nowadays because you have people attempting to keep karate commercially viable by adding grappling from Judo or Bjj and attempt to claim that its “traditional” karate.

Not sure where you're seeing that... most schools that I've seen add BJJ (haven't seen any that add judo) are very open about that. Perhaps you just hang around people of dubious morals and ethics...?

 

[Hanzou]

Are you kidding?!?!

Dude. That's all grappling. Grappling is the act of seizing, holding, pinning, locking, throwing, choking, or pressuring, as opposed to striking, which is the act of impacting... if there's a grab, or pressure, it's grappling. Just because you decide to limit your personal recognition of reality doesn't change it...

And just because you can't accept the modern application of the term doesn't change reality either. If a student is looking for grappling, they won't find much of any in a typical Karate dojo.

Seriously, this is like saying that China doesn't have any arts teaching sword combat, because there's no Western Broadswords there, and it's the only sword you've ever seen...

That is seriously one of the worst comparisons I've seen on this forum, and that's saying a lot. Chinese martial arts has a rather robust history of sword arts. 9 traditional "throws" in Shotokan that are rarely taught in modern karate, and when taught are so poorly taught that the student gets nothing out of it, isn't an example of grappling.

Those of us in the grappling sphere fondly call stuff like that "crappling".

You know, I'm starting to believe you when you say your Shotokan time was poorly spent... karate's grappling is NOT related to Judo, and existed well before Judo did... Funakoshi's book on Shotokan includes the 9 fundamental throws of the system, which were not taken from Judo (one glance at them tells you that), and Okinawan forms have a much broader set of grappling and grappling applications than the Japanese ones do (other than Wado Ryu... but that's mainly as Wado Ryu is a synthesis of both Shotokan and Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu, to the point where the name of the school is often given as "Wado Ryu Kempo Jujutsu").

See above.

Does karate specialise in these methods? Not in the Japanese forms, in the main. But they're there. And that's the point. And, of course, if you want to specialise, I'd agree to go do judo... but that's not what is being asked. And dude... "throwing someone wearing a jacket" is often describe (in English) as "jacketed wrestling".... you know... grappling.

Just because it exists in a system doesn't mean that it's properly trained in a system, or is worth mentioning as if its some robust facet of said system. For example, there are strikes in Judo kata. Do we run around saying that Judo contains striking? Would we recommend Judo for someone seeking to learn striking? No we don't, and no we wouldn't.

No, you're limiting it to your small area of experience. All we're doing is saying that grappling is a broad term that covers a lot more than just the ground fighting that a few arts specialise in... which, when all is said and done, is a minor art in the grand scheme of things.

You mean my area of experience which is overwhelmingly the topic we're talking about? And yeah, only one grappling art really specializes in ground fighting, and the reason that art is so dominant in that sphere (to the point where you would ignorantly believe that multiple arts specialize in that form of grappling) is because the ground is where grappling exchanges almost always tend to end up.

So what? As I've said, that is only a small portion of what grappling entails... so, because there's a popular sport that limits it's understanding of a word, we all have to ignore the wider meaning?

Yeah, try reading that again. "Wrestling" would include all forms of Wrestling from Folkstyle to Mongolian, to Jacket wrestling like Judo and Shuai Jiao. Submission grappling would include everything from MMA grappling, to Bjj, to Sambo, to Catch and everything in between. I wouldn't consider that a small portion of anything.

Not sure where you're seeing that... most schools that I've seen add BJJ (haven't seen any that add judo) are very open about that. Perhaps you just hang around people of dubious morals and ethics...?

When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong - Ground Fighting in Karate

 

[dvcochran]

The only point I'd make here is the comment that "folks who have been in wrestling, BJJ and probably MMA have a more intimate viewpoint".

No, they don't. They have a more restricted view, if anything. Their viewpoint is so limited that they end up only recognising a small portion of the reality, which is the opposite of an "intimate" view, at it's heart.

As an example, let's look at exhibit a....



Are you kidding?!?!

Dude. That's all grappling. Grappling is the act of seizing, holding, pinning, locking, throwing, choking, or pressuring, as opposed to striking, which is the act of impacting... if there's a grab, or pressure, it's grappling. Just because you decide to limit your personal recognition of reality doesn't change it...

Seriously, this is like saying that China doesn't have any arts teaching sword combat, because there's no Western Broadswords there, and it's the only sword you've ever seen...



You know, I'm starting to believe you when you say your Shotokan time was poorly spent... karate's grappling is NOT related to Judo, and existed well before Judo did... Funakoshi's book on Shotokan includes the 9 fundamental throws of the system, which were not taken from Judo (one glance at them tells you that), and Okinawan forms have a much broader set of grappling and grappling applications than the Japanese ones do (other than Wado Ryu... but that's mainly as Wado Ryu is a synthesis of both Shotokan and Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu, to the point where the name of the school is often given as "Wado Ryu Kempo Jujutsu").

Does karate specialise in these methods? Not in the Japanese forms, in the main. But they're there. And that's the point. And, of course, if you want to specialise, I'd agree to go do judo... but that's not what is being asked. And dude... "throwing someone wearing a jacket" is often describe (in English) as "jacketed wrestling".... you know... grappling.



Hey Hoshin.

Chin-na is a particular sub-set of Chinese grappling, referring to locks and holds in particular, as well as grip escapes and so on... the throwing etc is more in Shuai Jiao, itself a form of traditional jacketed wrestling. As for atemi, that literally means "percussing/striking to the body", and is a term for striking, not grappling, as you said, and is pretty commonly used... there can be a few variants, such as uchite (striking hands), uchi waza (striking techniques), daken (striking weapon/fist), and so on. It's all dependent on the system itself. I'll cover the actual answer to your initial question in a moment.



No issue on your answering, ronin... a point, though. "Hikite" is literally "pulling hand", not "grabbing hand"... that would be "torite" that you mention afterwards (which is basically the same as the Okinawan term "tuite", as you say).

Tori (取り) basically means "to capture/seize/hold", with "te" (手) meaning "hand", giving us the idea of a "grabbing/seizing hand" (very much like the Chinese term chin-na), and is a common enough term to be almost standard... but is applied differently in different systems. In some cases, it's used as a term, or part of a term, to describe an entire jujutsu syllabus for a school (Araki Ryu Torite Kogusoku, Takenouchi Ryu Torite Hi no Shita, Yagyu Shingan Ryu Torite-gi, and so on). Other schools will use it to categorise aspects such as joint lock methods, to separate them from the throws, strikes, chokes etc (nage, uchi-waza/atemi, shime-waza).

Of course, the catch is that this is a way of categorising a particular move-set, rather than an engagement context and range, which is what you seemed to be actually asking about. In that case, there are again a number of terms used to describe an over-all stand up-grappling approach, but the thing to remember is that it's not anywhere near as separated as we in the West might think of things. In the West, we have a fairly firm distinction between "boxing" (stand up striking, hands only), "kickboxing" (stand up, striking with fists and kicks), "wrestling" (grappling, starting standing, but with an emphasis on ground control/pinning), and so on. This then lends itself to the situation we have here, where some (looking at Hanzou's next comments here) only want "grappling" to be a small segment of what the term actually encompasses... as it matches the Western preference for strict demarkation lines and categorisation.

All that said, there isn't much of a distinction made in Japanese arts between standing, seated, grappling, striking, or anything else, other than potentially within a particular school's syllabus... so one way to answer would be to say that the term used is "jujutsu"... of course, even that's not a strict definition, or the only term used, as we could also equally apply yawara, or taijutsu, or koshi no mawari, or goho, or hade, or wa, wajutsu, koshi, koppo, and more... that's before we even get up to individual segments of a schools' syllabus (Takenouchi Ryu has two separate sections that could be classed as a "jujutsu" section, the aforementioned Torite Hi no Shita, also referred to sometimes as Hade, and the Kogusoku Koshi no Mawari... it's known as the oldest jujutsu school, and they don't even use the term jujutsu!... Yagyu Shingan Ryu has four different jujutsu-like sections, including Kattchu Yawara [armoured grappling], Torite [arresting techniques], Taijutsu [unarmoured], and Gyoi Dori [a set of techniques used for the protection of a lord... quite an interesting set of waza!]).

If you want to imply a close-quarters grappling range, however, there are a few terms that come up... torite would be one, but it'd be a bit unusual to have it applied in this sense. More commonly, you'd come across "kumi-uchi" (close-inside), or sometimes "yotsude" (literally: "four hands", implying there are four points of contact with both the opponents hands and your own), and perhaps a few more.



No, you're limiting it to your small area of experience. All we're doing is saying that grappling is a broad term that covers a lot more than just the ground fighting that a few arts specialise in... which, when all is said and done, is a minor art in the grand scheme of things.



So what? As I've said, that is only a small portion of what grappling entails... so, because there's a popular sport that limits it's understanding of a word, we all have to ignore the wider meaning?



Not sure where you're seeing that... most schools that I've seen add BJJ (haven't seen any that add judo) are very open about that. Perhaps you just hang around people of dubious morals and ethics...?

A thorough post....but still less about the OP and mostly to make your own prideful sounding point.

So just a yes or no answer. Does your experience bear that there is grappling in Karate?

Then disseminate the inherent differences in the typical grappling taught in Karate and more modern grappling. There is a lot to talk about here.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

They're throws and takedowns, like I said. There is standing grappling, like what you see in wrestling and Judo, but that isn't what Karate does. Karate's throws are more counter-based, where someone throws a punch, the Karateka somehow grabs the arm and then throws the opponent, or the opponent does an attack, and the karateka counters by sweeping them. That isn't grappling. Standing grappling is snap downs, arm drags, Russian ties, clinching, grip fighting, standing chokes, etc.

You’re really stretching the definition of grappling by applying it to what Karate does. Especially in the modern context of MA where grappling is largely considered wrestling and submission grappling.

I'll have to disagree with you on that. Grappling is grappling: grabbing, pushing, pulling, twisting, holding, lifting, off-balancing, sweeping, throwing, pinning, locking, breaking grips, pretty much anything aside from striking where you are attempting to control another person's body with your own is grappling. That's the definition of the word. It's not just modern sophisticated submission grappling. Heck, a completely untrained person grabbing someone in a headlock or shaking them by their lapels is grappling. Maybe not very skilled grappling, but grappling nonetheless. (Just like an untrained person swinging a wild haymaker is striking, even though it's certainly not skilled boxing.)

Now if you want to argue that the grappling found in karate is generally much more limited and rudimentary than what you'll find in a dedicated grappling art like wrestling or BJJ, then we have no argument.

I'd compare it to the striking found in classic old-school Gracie Jiu-Jitsu. It isn't anywhere near the level of the striking you would find in boxing or Muay Thai, but it's definitely there. Watch the footage of the old Gracie fights. They all used striking - kicks, punches, elbows, headbutts. It wasn't very advanced, but it served the purpose of helping to set up their grappling objectives. In the same way, the rudimentary grappling found in most karate styles was primarily intended to help land their strikes effectively.

 

[hoshin1600]

A thorough post....but still less about the OP and mostly to make your own prideful sounding point.

Actually he was answering my direct question to him on terminology and usage.

Thanks @Chris Parker that was what I was looking for

 

[hoshin1600]

I would like to point out that we have been talking about karate as if its a homogeneous entity, and its not. In my experience styles like Shotokan have very little "grappling" (if we can agree to use that term) and the Naha styles have more and I would say Uechi ryu has more than that..depending on your teacher.

 

[isshinryuronin]

No issue on your answering, ronin... a point, though. "Hikite" is literally "pulling hand", not "grabbing hand"...

Yes, correct - I had "grabbing" on the brain and miswrote - Thanks.

A further note on this - Often the kata does not show the grab and pull and so a movement may seem like just a low block or a chambering of the hand on the hip. The end point only is noticed, but the value of the technique is what's happening in the middle. At least half of the moves in most Okinawan kata involve hikite or tuite.

 

[punisher73]

why because you think you´re an expert? you can´t be wrong? wow..a real meltdown.
View attachment 23519

Mr. Parker may not label himself as an "expert", but many on this forum do consider him very well educated in the Japanese arts and their history.

I am in agreement with Chris as well. "Grappling" includes both groundwork (ne-waza) and the standup aspect (locks, throws, sweeps, takedowns etc.). It has been pointed out MANY times by me and others that the "original" karate included grappling. It has also been pointed out many times that karate does NOT include groundwork as seen in BJJ, wrestling etc.

Lets make it really simple....anytime you or your opponent are grabbing on to something attached to the person, you are grappling.